India in 10 years: How the bar contends with winds of change

New Delhi, Feb. 4 -- A look at the decade to come must necessarily commence with a glance back to see how we reached here. When this daily was launched in February 2007, the United Progressive Alliance government was in its first avatar and Justice K.G. Balakrishnan had just commenced what would be an insipid 1,214-day tenure as the Chief Justice of India (the longest in the last 30 years). Back then, most media houses had half-a-dozen scribes on the Parliament beat while the court mandated the occasional story.
For the first time in three decades, we now have what is effectively a single-party government at the Centre. Notwithstanding that, when Chief Justice J.S. Khehar took oath last month, he stamped the independence of his office from Day 1 by ensuring that the Rashtrapati Bhawan swearing-in ceremony was advanced to allow the court to sit on time. Unsurprisingly, the fourth estate is now permanently ensconced in large numbers outside the Supreme Court in Delhi.
When did this change happen? And how?
It probably began with the diversity of issues that came before the court-corruption, demolition, iron ore mining, LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) rights, state bifurcation, death penalty, the Ambani feud, air pollution, community reservations and free speech on the Internet. And yes, cricket. While one or more of these would have hit the headlines in the past, the fact that they all came together at a time of "breaking news" and "Twitter trends" created an upheaval.
At the same time, legal regulation was not keeping pace. It became common for half-baked laws to be rushed through without adequate research and consultation, only in an attempt to project reform (Right to Education, Lokpal, Whistleblowers). A jaded public watched as Parliament failed to function, and when it did, the executive followed with a lack of implementation and imagination. The fact that as many as 60 reports of the Law Commission, submitted since 2007, continue to gather dust shows the lack of political will. The gravitation is invariably towards issues that would garner votes (employment guarantee, food security and reservations). Or traditional deification (half a dozen universities in the names of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi established over just four years).
It comes as no surprise then that all eyes are on the Supreme Court, where the citizen seeks the deliverance that ought to have come from elsewhere. As the nation's conscience keeper, its role in the years to come will be central to understanding the path we take.
Any institution is only as good as its people and, in this particular case, we need look no further than those two tribes-judges and lawyers. The apex court has received a fillip in recent years with the unprecedented direct elevation to it of three of its pre-eminent practitioners (R.F. Nariman, U.U. Lalit and L.N. Rao). Adding such men of impeccable integrity, deep learning and great compassion in this manner is an extraordinary step. Their own sacrifice of very lucrative private practices has suggested a prioritization of the institution over the individual, which sends out a valuable message. With the most recent attempt at executive interference having been rebuffed successfully, the collegium will continue to select our judges and, as matters stand, that is a good thing. As we already know who the chief justices of India will be till 2024, there is every reason to believe that the court will continue to stand firm and independent.
There will be hurdles to surmount, however, foremost among which are the twin challenges of delays and arrears. It is essential for courts to go completely paperless and for our more tech-savvy judges to take the lead in their own courtrooms. Although a recent demand has been rejected, it would be most welcome if live video feeds of courts were offered to the public. Not only would it educate them on the judicial process by doing away with media misinterpretations, it would also expose the incompetent, the dishonest and the unscrupulous. Apart from ensuring that ignorance of the law would be no excuse, this would also be yeoman service to several generations of law students.
Although they are a much maligned group, recent events suggest that we can now take solace even from lawyers. With the law increasingly becoming a viable career option, the recent additions to the Bar have enriched it with learning and erudition. Already, many young lawyers are boldly commencing practice in the highest court, a prospect that was frowned upon at the turn of the century. Much of tomorrow's responsibility rests on their young shoulders, and it is essential for the old guard to mentor them in ushering in a new era of the court.
What is particularly gratifying is the large number of young women at the Bar-a sure sign of prosperity for any discipline. It is time that more of them take their honoured positions in the higher echelons of the profession, not by virtue of their gender, but simply because of their undeniable merit. That there has been an increase in the number of women on the Supreme Court bench in recent years is an inspiration in the right direction.
As the sands of time run out, Abraham Lincoln's words bear recalling to judges, lawyers and laymen alike-"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today."